kwiktrix

I've just became aware of this posting. Questions: 1) Is this for an individual hand - or for a pair of hands? ie are the tricks predicted for an individual hand or for delarer/dummy combined? 2) If the former, are they additive? 3) Have you done a statistical comparison between what you predict and what is reality? (DD or SD?) What is the degree of fit? Does the correlation go through (0,0)? 4) The statistical data/fit methodology from which you arrive at your method is not described. Could you provide the basis for the method? KWS

Consider the following auction over a 10-12 pt no-trump opening: (1N) P (2♣) -> 2♣ is Stayman but your advance in this situation depends on whether a weak option is included - ie are they playing 'Garbage Stayman'. As advancer, let's say you have a 14pt hand. You want to announce that to your partner by doubling 2♣ over a GS version of Stayman (ie expose the 2♣ bid as weak), but not over a strictly invitational version wherein you would pass (or double - showing clubs). But to find out, you have to ask - and the process of asking provides your partner with UI, since your Pass or Double will be impacted by the answer to your question. How do I handle? How do you rule if I ask, then pass? I suppose I could ask every declarer what their range is, and over weak notrumpers ask if they play garbage, but that seems over-the-top.

Over 1N, it was only as recently as AUG2016 that 2D could even be a true 'multi' (either major). Otherwise it has to have at least one known anchor suit. And for Dan's edification that's 100% known - not 76%... However, the ACBL allows any 'non-destructive' method as a defense to an artificial opening. So defenses to strong 1C or 2C (or even any short club that does not meet the exacting 4=4=3=2 natural standard) can be as aggressive as one desires. In my case, I like super-canapé 1M with psycho-suction 1N-2N.

There has never been one negative reference from me. Please explain your comment above. I posted some carefully worded responses as rebuttals and they have been removed. All of the documentation contained therein has now disappeared. Edit them if you will, but don't remove them.

Not having the free time to peruse your 187 page tome (is it available as an ePub on Amazon?) covering one infrequent eponymous bid (note that other major conventions named after their 'inventors' were named by 3rd parties, Jacoby and Stayman did not name their own conventions), I can't help but notice that you don't have a Section relating to "Dealing with Interference". Since responder doesn't know what opener has until opener rebids, what does responder do in the following auction, one that would be not be unusual after a 2D opening? 2D (3C) ?? Give responder (H=A/K): 1) x Hxx Hxxxx Hxxx 2) xx xxx Hxxxx Hxx 3) x Hxxxx Hxx Hxxx 4) x Hxxx Hxxxx xxx What do you respond in each case? 3H or 3D or P? Now give opener the 64M hand (which based on the overcall is more likely than not in each of these four cases), and continue the auction after your response: 2D (3C) ?? (5C) Wow - I wish I'd opened 1M. At least responder could have added some value to the auction... In fairness, you appear to have invested a considerable amount of time in developing a self-named conventional bid that occurs far less frequently than either a multi 2D (with 5+M) or a simple weak 2D (with 5+D), yet supersedes very descriptive openings like 1M (or 1oM canape), 2D, 3D, or 2N. I applaud the effort. Unfortunately, I won't use it - besides the lack of any tangible benefit within any system I've ever played, it doesn't even come close to being legal for GCC or Mid-Chart play in the ACBL, either as an opening bid or a direct overcall over 1N. Kurt

To your first point, in my opinion this treatment only makes sense if one is playing a canapé style. There is no reason to show a 3cM unless opener can have a 5+cM. To your 'distinction' point. One must recognize that this was a GROUP decision. Mike et al had the power, as well as the precedent of the "definitions" in the ACBL GCC to impose a strict 4cM requirement. And yet they didn't. They voluntarily chose to call it a treatment despite having the power and rule precedents to ban it. What has changed since then? And if you suggest the 2007 LAW, how does that impact their thinking? They ALWAYS had the right to impose the 4cM rule. All the 2007 LAW does is support their rights. Kurt

But that is the system. And I used it accordingly. I'm happy with my answer, it meets my needs, and it's documented as legal. Why would I go back and ask again? And the 2007 LAWS changes did not impact "treatments". Kurt

Wrong again. This was NOT a ruling question, as Rick made very clear to me. It was a request for a method interpretation. I quote from his email: "This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox." This was a clear message to NOT send a question like this to RULINGS, so all of my further correspondence was directly with Rick and Mike through their ACBL mailboxes. So what did I ask? I asked for a method decision (did you not read the history and the preamble?). Which the ACBL did and made a CONSENSUS decision - not just Mike, but Rick Beye and multiple other senior directors. If it was a ruling question, as Senior Rules Director, Mike had the ability to simply say "yes or no" on his own. And he didn't. So why would I choose to go back and have a fully vetted decision re-reviewed (a decision which took 4 weeks to make) because some ACBL member threw out a random RULING question with no context? It is not surprising at all that Mike simply sloughed it off. Why are you so vehemently against something that has been approved in writing? Why do you care? And where do you get off judging a legitimately ruled method interpretation? Frankly, what you think is totally irrelevant to our playing this style, as it has been documented as legal. Kurt

Please explain how you arrive at "contractual tricks" CT? For example, you claim that: ♠ AKQJ ♥ 1098 ♦ 1098 ♣ 1098 = 4.45 CT I'm curious about the method of arriving at that figure. KWS

I think that it is important to understand the presentation of my case in 2006, and the significant review it went through at ACBL. It was NOT a decision by one individual, but by many senior TDs. Here is the text of my original email to rulings@ACBL.org (which apparently was the wrong place to send my question, see below). ===================================== Preamble We play a strong club with a canapé front end. With any canapé system, it is preferable to keep the auction forward-going with a constructive bid of 1M over 1D (1S over 1H as well) on a 3+ major (alerted). Failure to bid 1M announces to opener that he should not canapé reverse with his 5card suit since responder has less than 3 cards. This allows a non-forcing 1N to be passed by opener with a longer major - knowing that responder does NOT have 3 or more cards in the canapé major. For example - over 1D (either long diamonds or 4+d5major) - responder bids 1H with 3+h - failure to do so by bidding 1S, 1N (non-forcing) or 2m indicates 0-2 hearts. This allows opener to pass 1N with 5hearts instead of a mandatory reverse into 2H when responder's heart length has not been clarified. This would also apply to a 1H opening when responder has 3+ spades. We pre-alert the canapé bidding and alert all of the canapé bids as mandated in the pre-alert rules. From the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" American Edition (As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the AMERICAN CONTRACT BRIDGE LEAGUE) effective May 27, 1997 Definitions - http://web2.acbl.org/laws/definitions.htm Convention 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. There can be no argument from the above definition that responding constructively with 3+ in the major with the intent of playing there (specific to canapé) is NOT a convention - and hence cannot be regulated as such. Law 40D does not apply (it is neither a convention nor a partnership understanding relating to weak openings) and hence the ACBL cannot regulate the bid. Summary & Discussion In our canapé system, we play 1D-1M and 1H-1S as 3+ in the responding major and alert. They are 1-round forcing bids, no different than their counterparts with 4+ cards. Because opener can [and often does] have a 5-card major in a canapé system, the bids specifically offer a willingness to play in the denomination named. We can see no reason, whatsoever, for this to be disallowed NOR have we had any reason thus far to presume that they are disallowed. However, in an attempt to be proactive, we would prefer to have a confirming "official" ruling on this [i.e. a positive position statement by the ACBL] because it carries more weight than an analysis of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge should we find ourselves with a Director call. We ultimately want to see the GCC codified to allow it specifically. ===================================== It should be noted that the LAWS do not define "natural". They define "conventional" (or "partnership understanding" in the 2007 version). That which is NOT conventional is by extension "natural" or a "treatment" (alertable). Artificial is a subset of conventional. It should ALSO be noted that the GCC DEFINITIONS have not changed since then. The ACBL definition of 4cM as "natural" was in place at the time of this decision. So it simply means that 3+M over a canapé opening does not apply to "natural", as it is a treatment. And in support of the depth of the review process... ================================= Kurt, This mailbox is for general ruling questions. Your communication is more of a statement of your interpretations. While we understand that your interpretations are of interest to you, they hold little interest for the general member who writes to this mailbox. That aside, we are considering our reply carefully. Your original message was sent to several senior TDs for their views. These individuals work ACBL tournaments virtually every week. It often takes some time to come to a consensus opinion that all are comfortable with. You will receive an 'official' response to your statements as soon as we reach that consensus. Rick for Mike who is on assignment ================================== Note: BOLD is mine. And moreover... ================================== KWS: For future reference, is there a more appropriate channel for communication of this type of question? RICK: Usually Mike would acknowledge your note and send it on to me. He is in a very busy phase right now, so that just didn't happen. Our error. Please accept my apology for that delay. This box will work, with Mike acting as the distributor to others when appropriate. Normally we can get something like this finished in a week or so. Your note has generated some interesting comments amongst the senior staff. Some now even want to move canape to the Mid Chart. While that isn't going to happen, in the end we'll be able to better educate the junior staff if a canape problem comes up. ================================== Again BOLD is mine. And finally the 'official answer'. ================================== KWS: Many folks are still waiting on an "official response" to this question that I submitted originally on October 10th. How is it coming? Dear Kurt, Here is the official answer. This response in a three card major is a treatment, not a convention. As such, it is legal with the appropriate alerts and explanations in all ACBL-sanctioned play. Regards, Mike Flader =================================== This was not a simple call to the ACBL, or to Memphis. It was a thoroughly reviewed and reasoned decision by multiple senior TD's, as well as Beyer and Flader, who CAME TO A CONSENSUS. Could we get off this topic and understand that it is LEGAL within a canapé framework. Please? Kurt

To what "later decision" are you referring?

I'm the individual who approached Flader and Beyes in OCT 2006 and asked them if playing 1M over 1m and 1S over 1H with 3+cards was legal IN THE CONTEXT OF A CANAPÉ SYSTEM. After 4 weeks of internal review (Beyes acknowledged that it was a very difficult decision with strong feelings on both sides), I received this reply from Mike Flader in NOV 2006: "Here is the official answer. This response in a three card major is a treatment, not a convention. As such, it is legal with the appropriate alerts and explanations in all ACBL-sanctioned play. Regards, Mike Flader" I think that it is important to recognize that: a) it is legal if there is a reasonable expectation that opener could have an unbid 5+cM b) it is fully alertable, despite being natural as it is unexpected I carry my formal confirmation email with me to all ACBL events to support my position if it ever comes up. Which it doesn't... Kurt Schneider PS - for those wanting a copy of the original ACBL correspondence, please contact me directly at schneider.kurtatcomcastdotnet.

OK - I've had a lot of great input. The consensus is that: 1) Responses 1R/1N/2C all have equal load [since they are based on the same shapes but different suits] and this is bad, since 1N/2C are much higher bids. 2) Shapely Weak and GF responses can be potentially combined into one bid, with clarification later. 3) 1D can accommodate some of the big minor suited hands [1D-1M-3m, 1D-1H-2S, 1D-1M-2N]. This doesn't help responder, though. 4) Semi-forcing hands need more bids. Changes to 1C Opening: a) Move 15-19 6+m to 1D b) Move 15-19 5+m4+m to 1D c) Move 15-19 minor-major 2-suiters [5+5+] to 1D The new structure of responses to 1C looks like this: 1D = 10-14, all 4+h, or 0-6 balanced [could have any 4333, 4432, 5332] or 0-6 6+h: then after 1H [not breaking the relay]. If relay is broken by opener [spades or huge hand], then revert to natural bidding 1S = 0-6 balanced [only 4333, 4432, 5332], MAX 1 control - after 1N [15-19+], responder can bid 2x to play or pass 1N/2C = 10-14 4h/5+m [as before] 2D = 0-6 6h or 10-14 6h [added weak option, responder passes the 2H GAMMA with weak] 2H = 10-14 4h/5s [as before] 2S = 10-14 balanced 4h [not 4h333, could have 44M] or 5h332 [new - balanced options] - then 2N relay, 3H=GAMMA 4/5. After Relay, then 3m=4h4m, 3H=5h332, 3N=4h4s 2N/3C = 10-14 5h/4+m [new] 3D = 10-14 1=4=4=4 - then 3H/4m=ETA, 3S=BETA, 3N to play 3H = 10-14 4h/6s [new] 3S = 10-14 4h333 [new] 3N = AKQxxx in hearts [new] Symmetrically 1H = 10-14, all 4+s, or 0-6 6+s: then after 1H [not breaking the relay]. If relay is broken by opener [hearts or huge hand], then revert to natural bidding 1N/2C = 10-14 4s/5+m [as before] 2D = 10-14 4+s/5h [as before] 2H = 0-6 6s or 10-14 6s [added weak option, responder passes the 2S GAMMA with weak] 2S = 10-14 balanced 4s [not 4s333] or 5s332 [new - balanced options] - then 2N relay, 3S=THETA. After Relay, then 3m=4s4m, 3S=5s332, 3H=4s4h, 3N=4s333 2N/3C = 10-14 5s/4+m [new] 3D = 10-14 4=1=4=4 - then 3S/4m=ETA, 3H=BETA, 3N to play 3S = 10-14 4s/6h [new] 3H = 10-14 4s333 [new] 3N = AKQxxx in spades [new] 1S = 10-14 no 4+M, EXCEPT 10-14 4441 singleton minor, or 0-6 minor suits, or 55 minors then after 1N [automatic] 2C = 10-14, 4+d, denies 4+M - then after 2D, show shape? 2D = 10-14, 4+c, denies 4+d, denies 4+M - then after 2H, show shape? 2H = 10-14, 4=4=(41) - then after 2S, 2N=4c, 3C=4d, then BETA, ETA, etc. 2S = 0-6 55 minors 2N = 0-6 6+c 3C = 0-6 6+d 1N = 7-9, 5+c, no 4+M 2C = 7-9, 5+d, no 5+c, no 4+M 2R = 7-9, 5+M 2S = 7-9, balanced [or weak minors]? 2N/3suit = weak pre-empts

I have two versions of 1D opening [which I play with different partners, or under different scoring conditions] a) 10-14, 4+d, canapé -> 3+M responses [officially allowed by ACBL as a "treatment" over a canapé opening, provided it is alerted], 3hearts before 3+spades. 1D-1H-1S shows 5=x=4+=y. CANNOT have exactly 4M - they are ALL opened with 1M, EXCEPT 1D-1M-1N shows exactly 4441 with singleton in other major. 1D-1S-1N shows 5hearts and balanced. 1N opening is 12-14 including 5M332 hands with 5M Stayman. Preference for IMPS. b) 10-14, 4+d canapé as above with 3+M responses. ALSO balanced 5M332 hands. 1D-1H-1S shows 5spades, either 5=(332) or 5=x=4+=y. CANNOT have exactly 4M - they are ALL opened with 1M. 1D-1S-1N shows 5hearts=332. 1N opening is 10-14 [NO 4+M]. My preference for MP but has problems with 4441 hands [some lies involved]. All hands containing exactly 4M are opened 1M with canapé responses [1H-1S only guarantees 3+spades]. Because we use 1N as an artificial GF, 2suit is NF and shows 5+suit - which is OK, but we only have PASS available for a balanced non GF hand. We've argued about moving 4M balanced hands to the 1N opening, but it will require a narrowing of the range to 11+-14 and a change in the response structure. This would allow 1N to be F1, because all openings then are unbalanced and have a rebid available, and 2/1 responses can be NF. This is a point of contention with GCC however. You have taken up a lot of space to show 6+card responses - whether weak or GF. How do you respond with a simple balanced 3point hand? Also - GF hands have to have slam tools available. It's taken a second bid by responder to establish a GF. And how does opener with a HUGE hand force partner to bid again?

Interesting idea. Might make more sense to include clubs as well in the 1D opening, since 1D-1M/1N-3suit are available bids. Bears further review. While I understand your logic, I simply can't see this working. Using the frequency of 15 vs 16 vs 17 point hands for example, where 15point hands are twice as likely as 17point ones, we are putting in a structure that is not likely to see the light of day - the opps will simply be in the auction anyway - and we have now added X and pass to our arsenal. Weak hands [0-6] are simply not worth putting aside bidding space. I'm surprised at all of the attention 0-5/6 point hands are receiving in this thread. This would make sense if opener was not unlimited. For example: 1C-1D-1H-2D-2H-pass with 6hearts and 0 points. Unfortunately, opener can still have 24 points. Now, if we add some sort of "super-acceptance" by opener, so that a simple acceptance is limiting, this makes sense, but then it removes the possibility of asking bids [very important in the system]. Currently 1H cannot be 6+, it can only be 10-14. If you make it either 0-5 or 10-14, as you suggest, then we need a method of differentiation. This would force opener to super-accept with a big hand, losing the benefits of asking bids when responder actually has the 10-14 hand and we are probing for slam.